Jacob Zuma Hanekom

Photo: Flickr / GCIS

Jacob Zuma loses Hanekom appeal – forcing him to pay-up and apologise

He’s tried everything he could to wriggle out of it, but Jacob Zuma will now have to ‘pay Hanekom the money’. However, there is more to this verdict…

Jacob Zuma Hanekom

Photo: Flickr / GCIS

Jacob Zuma has seen an appeal against defamation charges filed against him rejected by the Constitutional Court of South Africa on Friday. He had been instructed to pay damages to Derek Hanekom, after the former minister was branded a “known enemy agent” by Msholozi last year.

Jacob Zuma defeated in ConCourt

The hectic war of words spilled over onto Twitter, where Jacob Zuma let fly at Hanekom after he admitted talks with the EFF in 2017, admitting that he had plotted to remove uBaba from office. JZ stated that the ANC stalwart and his one-time comrade had a history of defection, implying that he’d served as an apartheid spy.

Zuma, however, was unable to support these claims. He was sued in court by Hanekom, and despite his recent efforts to get the verdict overturned, ConCourt have held firm this week.

How much Jacob Zuma has to pay Derek Hanekom – and what else he must do:

The Supreme Court of Appeal has also rejected the advances of the former president, dismissing his case back in May. Eric Mabuza, representing Jacob Zuma as his legal counsel, confirmed that his client would be complying with the initial order – meaning that Zuma must now undertake the following actions:

  • He must delete the Tweet which claimed Derek Hanekom was a ‘known enemy agent’.
  • He must pay R500 000 to Hanekom, who has already stated he will send the money to charity.
  • A public apology must be made by Jacob Zuma.
  • And finally, Msholozi is forbidden from reiterating the claims that Hanekom spied for the apartheid regime.

ConCourt rules in favour of Derek Hanekom

Judge Mathiba ruled that Jacob Zuma had ‘no reasonable prospects’ of succeeding with this application:

“The Constitutional Court has considered the applications for condonation and the leave to appeal. It has concluded that the application for condonation should be granted, but the leave for appeal should be dismissed as it bears no reasonable prospects of success.”

Judge Mathiba